[lit-ideas] Re: Tittles--a change of title
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:32 +0900
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:21 PM, John Wager <john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> "Philosophy" covers metaphysics, epistemology AND ethics.
I have no disagreement with this statement. I do recall, however, that
people who called themselves philosophers and were recognized as such have
offered similar definitions that differ in the subfields contained within
their scope. What of the philosopher of art who considers aesthetics as part
of the discipline and can point to Aristotle on rhetoric and poetics to
ground her assertion? What of the logical positivists, who dismissed both
metaphysics and ethics as fundamentally emotional and irrational and limited
epistemology to a narrow set of criteria concerned only with logical
consistency and referential meaning?
As an anthropologist and amateur philosopher I find the following assertions
more interesting.
First,
> To put it slightly differently, the philosopher gets hung up on the
> epistemological assumptions in the first chapter of the "text" of
> anthropology: What are the epistemological assumptions being made by the
> anthropologist in order to begin their investigation? Which assumptions are
> somewhat questionable? Which assumptions seem legitimate?
and second,
>
>
> At some point, after sufficiently competent and careful analysis, we have
> to decide if the taboo against "incest" is good or bad. The job of an
> anthropologist is done before this point; there is no inherent need to
> analyze whether the incest taboo is good or bad.... But that's where the
> philosopher's job begins, after the anthropologist is done: What is good and
> what is bad about our own and other culture's practices?
Leaving aside the particulars of the case, what combining these statements
suggests to me is the proposition that philosophers make it their special
business to examine the boundary conditions of human knowing, judging and
action. Every more particular discipline starts from certain assumptions
about what will count as serious knowledge, acceptable judgment and
appropriate action within its sphere. This special business is, indeed,
transcendental in that it questions these basic assumptions and develops
arguments in favor of those the philosopher believes to be sound.
I say "believes" deliberately. Since, while many philosophers appear to
believe that they know absolutely that certain assumptions are true and
construct arguments accordingly, there are always other philosophers who
disagree. Indeed, the history of the discipline is that of a series of
arguments and refutations that is still on-going and seems unlikely to end
any time soon.
Long may it continue.
John M
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
